My
first thought when I read that article was that it is fake news.
It's not fake in the sense that I don't believe it's correct
(although it is very misleading). I'm saying it's fake in the sense
that it's not news. Does anyone really believe a left-leaning site
like The Huffington Post is at all concerned with young people
leaving the church? The point of the story isn't, “What
are we going to do about these young people leaving the church?”
It's more like, “Ha,
ha. Look at how stupid these young people think creationists are.”
The
author seems to want to shame people away from believing in creation.
It's a common tactic which I've
written about years ago. Consider this quote from the first
paragraph:

Particularly
disturbing is the finding that only 27 percent of evangelical pastors
“strongly disagree” with the statement that the earth is 6,000
years old.

Do you
see what I mean? The author finds a belief in a young earth,
“particularly disturbing.” In spite of its headline, the
article is less about young adults leaving the church and more about
getting Christians to stop believing in creation. But the liberal
bias and shoddy reporting of The Huffington Post is not the point of
my post today. I was more interested in what my FaceBook friend
said. When he posted the link to the article, he commented:

Young
Earth Creationists need to think about this.

Now,
I can't claim to know exactly what this person was thinking when he
said this. He seems to be making the same point that unbelieving
evolutionists make when they write similar comments; he seems to be
saying to creationists, “Just stop it because you look silly.”
Maybe this person was trying to make a legitimate point that
completely escapes me. I've thought and thought about his comment
and the only thing I can conclude is that it is a blatant appeal to
consequences.

Let
me ask this: if a six-day, literal, miraculous creation is the
correct understanding of the Genesis account, then what else is there
think about? If I tell people the truth, and they leave the church,
am I wrong for having spoken the truth? Should I not tell the truth
for fear of offending someone? What else about the truth should I
water down? What if people leave the church because I tell them
Jesus was rose from the dead? Another reason cited for people
leaving the church is that they are uncomfortable with the
exclusivity of Christianity. So then are we to teach universalism
instead? Jesus is one way but any way is fine.

If
people leave the Church because we believe the Bible about creation,
that does nothing to prove a belief in a miraculous creation is
wrong. And if creation is correct, then why should we compromise on
the truth of it in order to make the Bible seem compatible with the
incorrect theory of evolution?

Articles
like this one and comments like that made by my FaceBook friend are
pointless. It's a worthless argument. But I have something to say
to Christians who make these arguments: I think you're doing far more
harm than good with your compromise!

The
Bible commands us to love God with our minds (Deuteronomy 6:5,
Matthew 22:37, et al). Evolution is a worthless theory. It
is rife with difficulties, it makes no useful predictions, and it has
made no contribution to any scientific advancement made in the last
century. If a young person is wavering in his faith because he sees
a conflict between “science” and the Bible, you need to know how
to defend the Bible rather than giving credence to some useless,
fairytale dreamed up by men how proudly boast that miracles never
happen. Do you think it's helpful to say to an inquisitive youth,
“Well, the Bible doesn't always mean what it says”? I
think young people are leaving the church because they don't see the
church as having any authority. When Christians pick and choose
which parts of the Bible they will believe, it sets a bad example
that these young people can see.

Jesus
faced this same problem during His ministry. He preached the truth
and people turned away because of it. John 6:53-68:

So
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in
yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal
life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true
food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My
blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and
I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live
because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not
as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live
forever.” These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in
Capernaum. Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this
said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” But
Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them,
“Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of
Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives
life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you
are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not
believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did
not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was
saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come
to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” As a result
of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him
anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away
also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we
go? You have words of eternal life.Jesus
spoke the truth. People left following Him because they didn't want
to hear the truth. I will be like Peter and accept the truth no
matter how difficult it seems. I will not be like those Christians
who compromise on the truth of the Bible for the sake of making it
seem more appealing.

1 comment:

Let me ask this: if a six-day, literal, miraculous creation is the correct understanding of the Genesis account, then what else is there think about?

Why, obviously, whether it is true or not.

Normally, we start by asking what a story means before we go on to try to determine whether it is true or not. I realize that you go about things the other way with the Bible -- conclude that it is true, and then worry about what it means; thus you don't see anything else to think about a passage once you've assumed you know what it means.

But note that this leads you, in some cases, to assume that what it means is not what it plainly says. The Bible speaks of windows in the sky, pillars of the Earth, and storehouses for hail and snow. From what we know of ancient Near East cosmologies, including extrabiblical writings of the Jews in the first centuries BC and AD, every single one of these passages could have been interpreted literally by readers contemporary with their writers, but you assume that they must be figurative because you accept scientific ideas about meteorology and geology that cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of these passages. By the same method, while every statement in the Bible touching on geography or cosmology is consistent with a flat, disk-shaped Earth, even while the Bible speaks explicitly of removing the believer's sin from him "as far as the east is from the west," you assume that the Bible must be compatible with a spherical Earth.

Evolution is not a worthless theory. A theory that makes no useful predictions cannot be "rife with problems," and the usefulness of predictions, for a scientific theory, is not whether they can be spun off to make new gadgets but whether they are testable and provide explanations of why things are one way rather than other possible ways. Pseudogenes for the main protein in egg yolk, in the human genome, make no sense in creationist terms but are an obvious prediction of the idea that humans (and other placental mammals) descended from egg-laying ancestors. Fossils that straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between humans and nonhuman primates are a prediction (given a sufficiently complete fossil record) of the idea that we are descended from nonhuman primates, and such fossils exist. There is a certain obstinate perversity in refusing to admit that comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, and paleontology are as incompatible with separate creation six thousand years ago as meteorology is with the idea of literal hatchways in the solid firmament spread, like a tent or dome, over the flat disk of the Earth.

RKBentley

About me

I'm a husband, a father, and a Christian. Being a Christian is not something I do on Sundays but rather it is who I am. My faith influences everything I do. Christians are commanded to always be ready to give an answer – a reason for the hope that is in us. I take that command seriously. Psalm 19:7 says that the testimony of the LORD is sure. If we base all of our thinking on the Bible, we can't go wrong. I started this blog to encourage other Christians and challenge critics on a variety of issues. Whether you agree or disagree with me, you're welcome here. Please follow me on Twitter and friend me on FaceBook! God bless!!